W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

(unknown charset) Re: CfC: Publish HTML5 Microdata as First Public Working Draft and a new HTML5 Working Draft

From: (unknown charset) Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:09:35 +0100
To: (unknown charset) Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: (unknown charset) HTML WG Public List <public-html@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Message-ID: <20100111230935052285.415701cd@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Maciej Stachowiak, Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:59:31 -0800:
> Hi Leif,
> On Jan 11, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> I must unfortunately change my support for the publication of a FPWD of
>> Microdata to an objection. I have one condition, with two alternative
>> solutions, for lifting my objection:
>> 	EITHER: Solicit with the community behind HTML+RDFa about changing the
>> title "HTML+RDFa" to e.g. "HTML5+RDFa", "HTML5 RDFa" or "HTML5 with
>> RDFa" (or another name that includes "HTML5"). Then I could accept
>> "HTML5 Microdata" as title of the FPWD of Microdata. (Both title and
>> subtitle count as "title")
>> 	OR: Solicit with the community behind Microdata to change the title of
>> the FPWD to "HTML+Microdata" or some other name which do not include
>> the word "HTML5". (Both title and subtitle count as "title")
> I understand where you're coming from, but is this really an FPWD 
> blocker? It seems like something that could be handled by filing bugs 
> against either or both specs. I note that HTML+RDFa already has a 
> bugzilla component. I especially wouldn't want to block publication 
> of Microdata on an action by a different editor.
> Alternately: Ian, would you be OK with changing the title from "HTML5 
> Microdata" to either "HTML+Microdata" or "HTML Microdata" or 
> something similar?

I have added my support for a decision where Microdata was moved out of 
HTML 5 but where the Microdata community was granted almost beforehand 
guarantee that they would be able to get a FPWD of Microdata.

I would suggest that if the Microdata community wants to use the name 
"HTML5 Microdata", that they file a bug against HTML+RDFa asking that 
they change their title to something which indicates that HTML+RDFa is 
part of HTML5 - namely a title which includes HTML5.

Or, as you suggest, that the Microdata community immediately drops the 
"5" from the title of its draft.
It would seriously destroy the trust in our process if we accept as 
title of the Microdata FPWD something which contradicts the WG 
decision. A WG decision should not be possible to turn around by a 
little bit of clever reinterpretation. We should do this correct right 
from the start, to avoid continued bickering/change proposals.
leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 22:10:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:56 UTC